Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out with no
substantiation to support it.

It's wrorse than that - it never HAS been about left or right - but
the wealthy elite versus the rest of us. Democrat or Republican -
note how little Kerry and Bush differed. Both part of the same
club of billionare rich boys with delusions of power.

jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

Michael McKelvy wrote:

There is no rationale for this tax. It's anti-family business, it's
anti-minority business, and it's picking the carcass of someone who earned
and wishes to pass it on to his or her family.

In fact, it leads to a preverse system of old-age homes and people
willingly spending everything they made as they get older in order
to end up with nothing at all for their years of hard work.

Sad, really. How does it hurt anyone for my great uncle to have
kept his house he built with his own hands in the family? As
it was, it was sold. He was old enough when he died to remember
when the law itself was passed, in fact - 98, IIRC - born just
before 1900(fought in WWI as well).

He built it thinking it would be in the family for generations.
He ended up realizing it was never going to happen.

John Williams wrote:

You, my friend, are a libertarian.


Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social

liberal.

That is what Republicans used to be a long long time ago.

Now their party is so far right that they sound like Libertarians
by comparison.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out
with no
substantiation to support it.


It's wrorse than that - it never HAS been about left or right - but
the wealthy elite versus the rest of us. Democrat or Republican -
note how little Kerry and Bush differed. Both part of the same
club of billionare rich boys with delusions of power.

Class war! Class war!

You will be banished to that bastion of socialism: Vermont!

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.

It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.


You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.

Fees for service are not force. You get a direct benefit for the expense.
It's income taxes and property taxes and sales taxes that I object to the
most.
They simply decree you must pay for things you may never get.

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.


It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.



You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.
What exactly is the difference between "fees and tariffs" and taxes?
Tariffs are, in fact, taxes. And in any case, all of them are confiscatory
if government can compel citizens to pay them.

Fees and tariffs was how the Constitution said taxes should be collected.
Mostly they were for a service. If you never used that service, you didn't
pay that fee. Much different than not paying property tax or income tax.

"John Williams" wrote in message
...

I agree with you in principle, however, the flat tax primarily shifts the
tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. I doubt that the
majority
of the middle class would be very happy about that.

If there's going to be an income tax it should be the same rate for
everyone.
The rich will still pay more dollars.



No sales tax, there's to many states that have them already and nobody
escapes. A flat tax with exemption for anybody below 35,000 has been
previously proposed and the numbers seemed top work. The problem,
homeowners will lose their mortgage deduction.

If there must be an income tax, I like the idea of everybody paying some
tax, since the country belongs to everybody and is supposed to be
protecting
everybody. .

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message



Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view
that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.



...or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--

Free speech refers to political speech, not terrorist speech.

At a talk about the First Amendment given in a public high school, Justice
Scalia had US Marshalls snatching tape recorders from the hands of
reporters who had permission to be at the event. The event, held on PUBLIC
SCHOOL GROUNDS with the topic centered around the FIRST AMENDMENT .


Not really any different from a professor who doesn't allow tape recorders
in his class.

That is what I'm talking about.

What is this "terrorist speech" you speak of?

I thought you were talking about monitoring internet communications, which
used to be legal only for organized crime but under the Patriot Act is now
OK for suspected terrorists.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view
that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.

Provide a quote of that?

"Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement." -
Schizoid Man, November 19, 2004

Inability to provide proof, noted.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
thlink.net...


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.


It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.



You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.

What exactly is the difference between "fees and tariffs" and taxes?
Tariffs are, in fact, taxes. And in any case, all of them are confiscatory
if government can compel citizens to pay them.


Fees and tariffs was how the Constitution said taxes should be collected.
Mostly they were for a service. If you never used that service, you didn't
pay that fee. Much different than not paying property tax or income tax.


You mentioned the sales tax elsewhere.

That is compelled and confiscatory.

Likewise tariffs. They are taxes on goods, and you pay them
either as an extra charge for a good or service, or built
into the price. If the good or service comes from another
country, you have no cohice in th ematter if you need the
good in question.

Bear in mind also that many services for which fees are paid
to government are not available elsewhere. Hence, they are
also quasi-compulsory, hence, confiscatory.

Truth is, if we are to have government, we wil pay taxes.
Given how low our taxes are in the advanced industrialized
world, and how much, in reality, people of both major party
affiliations want government to do,we ought to stop bitching
so much about what is taken, and decide how best to spend it
for the greater good.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...


Schizoid Man wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message




Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view
that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.



...or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--

Free speech refers to political speech, not terrorist speech.

At a talk about the First Amendment given in a public high school, Justice
Scalia had US Marshalls snatching tape recorders from the hands of
reporters who had permission to be at the event. The event, held on PUBLIC
SCHOOL GROUNDS with the topic centered around the FIRST AMENDMENT .



Not really any different from a professor who doesn't allow tape recorders
in his class.

Come now.

Scalia is a public servant, in a public facility, speaking
about the First Amendment to high school kids. The reporters
had permission to be present. Scalia has no say whether or
not they record his remarks. They are a matter of public
record. Our taxes pay his salary, pay for the school's
construction, maintenance, and operation. This one is very
simple.

This is nothing like a professor at all. Since when do you
applaud the jack-boot thuggery involved in seizing taped
recordings of his poublic speech?


That is what I'm talking about.

What is this "terrorist speech" you speak of?


I thought you were talking about monitoring internet communications, which
used to be legal only for organized crime but under the Patriot Act is now
OK for suspected terrorists.

What determines who is to be suspected of terrorism? All of
th egovernment's cases against citizens and residents here
have come apart at the seams.

Since when do you support government snooping on citizens
without any oversight?

Your libertarian card is going to get revoked.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Law of Storms said:

What have you done to Nexus? ;-)

Nexus?

What dat?

Sounds like a fancy men's perfume.

cue curtains billowing in the breeze, a fancy pants bed,
quiet violins sighing in the background..."Nexus...when you
have to smell like a PCB..."

Okie! You're back! :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Law of Storms said:

And FWIW, my head hurts.

Stop drinking that homebrew beer.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Law of Storms said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law Of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.

Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can Arny be my best man?

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Law of Storms said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law Of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.

Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can Arny be my best man?


He already is.

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
news
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...


Schizoid Man wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message




Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And
I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view
that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.



...or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--

Free speech refers to political speech, not terrorist speech.

At a talk about the First Amendment given in a public high school,
Justice Scalia had US Marshalls snatching tape recorders from the hands
of reporters who had permission to be at the event. The event, held on
PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUNDS with the topic centered around the FIRST AMENDMENT
.



Not really any different from a professor who doesn't allow tape
recorders in his class.

Come now.

Scalia is a public servant, in a public facility, speaking about the First
Amendment to high school kids. The reporters had permission to be present.
Scalia has no say whether or not they record his remarks. They are a
matter of public record. Our taxes pay his salary, pay for the school's
construction, maintenance, and operation. This one is very simple.

This is nothing like a professor at all. Since when do you applaud the
jack-boot thuggery involved in seizing taped recordings of his poublic
speech?


That is what I'm talking about.

What is this "terrorist speech" you speak of?


I thought you were talking about monitoring internet communications,
which used to be legal only for organized crime but under the Patriot Act
is now OK for suspected terrorists.

What determines who is to be suspected of terrorism? All of th
egovernment's cases against citizens and residents here have come apart at
the seams.

Since when do you support government snooping on citizens without any
oversight?

When did they change the law that removes oversight? Or are you just
repeating the same lie the other lefties tell?

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


Libertarians are not social *liberals.*


Doesn't "social liberal" mean, like, tolerant to a fault? Or are you
saying libertarians aren't allowed to have positions on social issues?



Sure, the tolerance part may apply. But "social liberal" in
today's context, where "liberal" is second only to "child
molester" in the pantheon of horrid monsters stalking the
American public, implies government programs, which cost
money, usually gathered via taxation, making "libertarian"
an inappropriate label.


I think you might possibly be inflating the fear level among the
Republicans. Sure, they've got their fear of god, and diversity, and
ethnicity, and gays, and communism, and taxes, but beneath all those
fears, they must be able to lead productive lives, right?

I'm not certain that's a safe presumption.

They are also afraid of fun. Very paralyzing.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Sander deWaal wrote:
Law of Storms said:


What have you done to Nexus? ;-)



Nexus?


What dat?


Sounds like a fancy men's perfume.


cue curtains billowing in the breeze, a fancy pants bed,
quiet violins sighing in the background..."Nexus...when you
have to smell like a PCB..."


Okie! You're back! :-)

I am not an Okie.

I failed to vote for the
no-marriage-for-gay-people-cause-we-fundies-are-too-sexually-insecure
amendment to the state constitution that predictably passed
by a wide margin.

Seems I bought teh dog, pick up truck, and lifetime's supply
of chewing tobacco for nothing.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Sander deWaal wrote:
Law of Storms said:


And FWIW, my head hurts.


Stop drinking that homebrew beer.

It's the bongwater, I think.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:

Law Of Storms said:



Marc Phillips wrote:



Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.


Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can Arny be my best man?

If you move here to marry me, bring a cache of small arms -
we'll need them.

Arny is fine, as long as his attire consists of more than
gray jockey shorts.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:

What determines who is to be suspected of terrorism? All of th
egovernment's cases against citizens and residents here have come apart at
the seams.

Since when do you support government snooping on citizens without any
oversight?


When did they change the law that removes oversight? Or are you just
repeating the same lie the other lefties tell?

Criteria for "suspect" is asonitshingly thin. Warrants can
be applied for after the fact. Anyone fingered as a suspect
is considered so until further notice.

Hence, no real oversight.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


Since when do you support government snooping on citizens without any
oversight?


When did they change the law that removes oversight? Or are you just
repeating the same lie the other lefties tell?


Criteria for "suspect" is asonitshingly thin. Warrants can
be applied for after the fact. Anyone fingered as a suspect
is considered so until further notice.

Hence, no real oversight.


Without commenting on the futility of presenting reason and logic to the
Bug Eater, oversight isn't the same thing as recourse. Which brings me to
one of my favorite hobbyhorses: Infringement of civil rights by government
agents should be subject to civil penalties. Of course, such a policy will
never fly during the current climate, since we're saddled with "leaders"
who are constitutionally incapable of admitting error.

I understand the futility involved. It's alot like listening
to right wing talknutz on the radio.

I think penalties should be invoked for infringement of
civil liberties.

Our leaders are not only constitutionally incapable of
admitting error, they believe they have committed no errors
to admit to. The perception of error is incorrect - these
are their intentional policies.



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:45:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It seems to me you are confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome
or equal ability. If two runners start at the same point, it's still
equal opportunity to win if one is slower than the other. On the
other hand, if one starts 10 meters in front of the other, it's not
equal opportunity. That's exactly the situation with inherited
wealth.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

I don't know the answer. However "estate tax" or "inheritance tax" is
the legal terminology. "Death tax" is a propaganda term.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

McKelvy said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Law of Storms said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law Of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.

Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can Arny be my best man?


He already is.

Can't you manage even one insult without sounding like a thirteen-year-old
retard? I mean, Jesus Christ already with the lame ****.

Boon

"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

Law of Storms said:



Marc Phillips wrote:
Law of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:

Law Of Storms said:



Marc Phillips wrote:



Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.


Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can Arny be my best man?

If you move here to marry me, bring a cache of small arms -
we'll need them.

Arny is fine, as long as his attire consists of more than
gray jockey shorts.

He has plenty of boxers...but I hope you don't mind skidmarks.

Boon

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.


It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.



You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.
What exactly is the difference between "fees and tariffs" and taxes?
Tariffs are, in fact, taxes. And in any case, all of them are confiscatory
if government can compel citizens to pay them.

--
Law of Storms

Ask Mikey, he brought up the differentiation.

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law of Storms said:




Marc Phillips wrote:

Law of Storms said:



Marc Phillips wrote:


Law Of Storms said:




Marc Phillips wrote:




Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means
to be "pro-gay." And I'm definitely not a
Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.


Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can
Arny be my best man?

If you move here to marry me, bring a cache of small
arms - we'll need them.

Arny is fine, as long as his attire consists of more
than gray jockey shorts.


He has plenty of boxers...but I hope you don't mind
skidmarks.

Treadmarks are preferable.

And the small arms? Grenades? An armada of Hummers?

This is serious ****, Boon, and if you can't get with the
program, I might take my rhinestoned ass elsewhere.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message
ink.net...



"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message ...


"Michael McKelvy" wrote
in message
ink.net...



Other people have other ideas about what the
role of government should be in people's lives.
I just don't want government to be able to
force people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.


It was collected before income tax as per the
Constitution, through fees and tariffs.



You said "I just don't want government to be able to
force people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs,
whatever, not just income taxes.

What exactly is the difference between "fees and
tariffs" and taxes? Tariffs are, in fact, taxes. And in
any case, all of them are confiscatory if government
can compel citizens to pay them.

-- Law of Storms


Ask Mikey, he brought up the differentiation.


Next time i'm voting agrarian.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Clyde Slick wrote:
"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.


Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

So only the middle-class should become poor?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
.net...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.


Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become
poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

So only the middle-class should become poor?


They have that opportunity, if they would only want to take advantage of it.

Law of Storms said:

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means
to be "pro-gay." And I'm definitely not a
Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.


Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And can
Arny be my best man?

If you move here to marry me, bring a cache of small
arms - we'll need them.

Arny is fine, as long as his attire consists of more
than gray jockey shorts.


He has plenty of boxers...but I hope you don't mind
skidmarks.

Treadmarks are preferable.

And the small arms? Grenades? An armada of Hummers?

This is serious ****, Boon, and if you can't get with the
program, I might take my rhinestoned ass elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but in your absence I denounced my conservative values and got all
touchy-feely. Someone needs a hug!

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law of Storms said:


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it
means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact
an antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and
irresistible.


Does this mean I have to move to Oklahoma? And
can Arny be my best man?

If you move here to marry me, bring a cache of
small arms - we'll need them.

Arny is fine, as long as his attire consists of
more than gray jockey shorts.


He has plenty of boxers...but I hope you don't mind
skidmarks.

Treadmarks are preferable.

And the small arms? Grenades? An armada of Hummers?

This is serious ****, Boon, and if you can't get with
the program, I might take my rhinestoned ass elsewhere.



I'm sorry, but in your absence I denounced my
conservative values and got all touchy-feely. Someone
needs a hug!

"Conserative values." An abused phrase.

gives tentative hug

Had a bath lately?

Now get that dress on. We've got a party to attend.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news


jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's
where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to
live near new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

Who cares how many people do the same wrong thing?

The death tax is not for the purpose you describe. That's just the excuse
they use to keep it. If it did what you think it's supposed to, why are the
Kennedy's, Kerry's, Bush's and Rockefeller's still rich.

The simple fact is this tax does harm and no good at all.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:45:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying
to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's
where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live
near
new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It seems to me you are confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome
or equal ability. If two runners start at the same point, it's still
equal opportunity to win if one is slower than the other. On the
other hand, if one starts 10 meters in front of the other, it's not
equal opportunity. That's exactly the situation with inherited
wealth.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

I don't know the answer. However "estate tax" or "inheritance tax" is
the legal terminology. "Death tax" is a propaganda term.

No, it's an accurate description of an evil property grab by the government.
It doesn't level the playing field, it just hurts people, especially family
farmers, minority businesses, and any family business.

The reason it was passed is over, it's just being kept around out of greed.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
.net...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.


Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become
poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

So only the middle-class should become poor?

Nobody should become poor, simply because their parents pass on their earned
wealth. The government is supposed to protect people not rob their corpses.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

The first zoning laws IIRC were in New York and they were passed for the
reason I gave.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

Here's a link to a history of zoning law. My memory wasn't exact but at
least I got the state right.
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa072801a.htm